dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed

Slave To The Duopoly
reply to FFH

Re: This brings up the dreaded "Net Neutrality" issues

for once, I agree with you...


Yup for once, I also agree with TCH.

Sent By Grocery Clerks

Evergreen, CO

1 recommendation

This is EXACTLY why I am pro-competition and against government regulated "net neutrality".

Who defines "net neutrality", gamers? No, of course not.

I want 31 Flavors, not 31 scoops of vanilla.


Glen Burnie, MD
When they put the same rules in place when celluar service first started in this country, then I will agree with you.

Fair and Balanced
Katy, TX
reply to Topmounter
Net Neutrality is defined as networks are neutral and no one customers traffic is given priority over anothers, there is no other definition that anyone can define.

Net Neutrality forces companies to build their networks to withstand bandwidth requirements and not beat around the bush by given people who pay more the regular service while giving those who refuse substandard service.

If you do not support net neutrality then do not complaign when you have to pay an extra 10 to 15 dollars a month just to access google or even to use your voip phone. Actually, if there is not net neutrality you might not even be able to access google or any other website that refuses to pay the extortion fees.


Chesterfield, MO
reply to Topmounter
I'm pro-competition too but until we have competition, don't we need some regulation to control the oligopolies?

Regarding prioritization, it's natural for every business to carefully utilize limited resources. Consider a grocery store that allocates some lanes to express, some to self-checkout and the rest for big shoppers. I think the idea is the big-box stores were losing to the convenience stores because the guy that only needs milk may not care that he pays $4.00 for a gallon if he can be in and out. But if he can go to the regular store and buy it for $3.00 a gallon and not wait behind someone with two shopping carts of groceries, it's a win for everyone.

Now consider what I hear are the desires of broadband last-mile providers. They too want to carefully utilize resources. But instead of making sure chatty but light bandwidth applications such as games and VOIP get good performance and FTP, bit torrent and long-winded HTTP traffic get second fiddle, only their own products get priority -- unless you pay to get equal footing. In my opinion, this is extortion. This would be similar to the grocery store only allowing you in the express lane if you buy their brand of bread, canned vegetables and potato chips. If you buy Wonder, Del Monte or Frito Lay, it's the slow lane for you! How is this different from a crime syndicate selling fire insurance at the end of a flame thrower?

But at least in the grocery hypothetical you know you're being screwed. With your ISP, you have no idea that your third party VOIP gets super low priority. Hell, they might even screw with you and prioritize ICMP above the RDP packets used by VOIP. If you ping, it looks great but your RDP packets will suck and make third-party VOIP impossible.

I'd love to get my cable company's phone service but in terms of features, my third party VOIP has more and it still costs less. If I already pay for high speed, I don't see why my local cable company (or AT&T) cannot offer a competitive product. Instead of matching price, they want to charge a premium to make sure my third party VOIP works and then their price and the third party VOIP are equal.

I wonder what would happen if one insurance company bought all the hospitals in America. If you bought their insurance, you received priority care in the emergency room and went to the top of any waiting list for surgery.